Allahabad Court January 1925 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahadeo Rai and ors. Vs. Jan Muhammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All341; 85Ind.Cas.1
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a zemindar against a tenant of his who had a house in the abadi for the demolition of a pucca well which that tenant had sunk in the Sahan in front of and appurtenant to his house. Both Courts below have dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff appeals. He claims that under what has been called the common law of these provinces, a zemindar is the owner of every inch of ground within the ambit of his zemindari, and that no tenant can, without his consent, make any permanent structure on any part of that zemindari. It is further argued that the sinking of the well in the Sahan of the defendant's house is a use of the land which is inconsistent with the purposes for which that land was given to the tenant, namely for ingress and egress, and that being so, the tenant has no right whatever to sink the well.3. There is no authority in this Court in support of the plaintiff's case and this is not surprising for it seems to us that the plaintiff is in ...
Sant Lal and ors. Vs. Beni Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All340; 87Ind.Cas.985
Ryves, J.1. In this appeal the short point is whether the letter sent by the defendants on the 20th of January, 1917 is an admission of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. The suit was one for balance of account and admittedly was time barred unless limitation was extended by this letter.2. Both Courts have found that it was a clear admission of liability within the meaning of that section. The decisive words are that the writer admitted the existence of a running account between the parties and went on to say that his representatives would in Phagun or Chait compare accounts and pay what was found to be due.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the case of Jageshwar Roy v. Raj Narain Mitter (1904) 31 Cal. 195. In every case of this kind the document in question has to be interpreted by its own language and it is not very helpful to cite rulings as to the meaning to be attached to a document in another case unless the wording is th...
Jumna Das and anr. Vs. Kunwar Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All447; 87Ind.Cas.440
Mukerji, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is a question of Hindu Law and arises under the following circumstances. The property in 'suit belonged originally to one Piare. Ha give it away absolutely to his daughter Mt. Sugna in whose hand therefore it was her stridhan property. Mt. Sugna had three sons viz., Durga Prasad, the husband of the plaintiff respondent and Jamna Das and Ganga Prasad, the defendants-appellants. The plaintiff-respondent claimed a third share in the property as being the separate property of Durgaprasad.2. The defence was that Durga Prasad died as a member of a joint Hindu family with the defendants and therefore the plaintiff inherited nothing.3. It has been found as a matter of fact that Durga Prasad and his two brothers ware living together as members of a joint Hindu family. The question is whether under the circumstances the share which Durga Prasad inherited was his absolute property inheritable by his widow on his death or whether Durga Prasad...
Rajaram Dhar Dube and ors. Vs. Jadunandan Dhar Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All758
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for redemption.2. It appears that Sribhukhan and Mt. Bahorna, the widow of his uncle Tanku made a mortgage of certain ex-proprietary tenancies in favour of the defendants. Raghubir, the brother of Tanku, was no party to that mortgage. The defendants-obtained possession of the entire tenancies from their mortgagors Sribhukhan and Mt. Bahorna. The plaintiffs are the sons of Sribhukhan. The defence raised by the mortgagees was that Eaghubir, the brother of Tanku, also had an interest. which he subsequently relinquished in favour of the zamindar, whose interest, has devolved on the mortgagees; and they further urged that Mt. Bahorna died, childless, and her interest in the holdings also lapsed to the zamindar. The lower Appellate Court has not allowed them to raise any such pleas. I am of opinion that the lower Appellate Court was right. It is not open to the mortgagees to say that at the time when the mortgage was made anyo...
Bhagwati Dayal Vs. Musammat Dhan Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1027
1. This is an application by Bhagwati Dayal for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in consequenee of the reversal by this Court of the decision of the Subordinate Judge, who allowed a compromise between the parties.2. The plaintiff brought a suit on the allegation that he had been adopted in 1916 by Musammat Dhan Kunwar, a defendant, under a verbal authority given by her deceased husband, Salig Ram. Another defendant who was impleaded was Ajudhia Prasad, he having obtained a mortgage on some of Salig Ram's property. After both the defendants had filed separate written statements denying the alleged adoption the parties were said to have come to a compromise, which was evidenced by a document, dated the 6th of August 1923, registered on the 8th of August. In the ordinary course the Subordinate Judge issued a commission for verification of the deed by the pardanashin lady, Musammat Dhan Kunwar, and she denied any knowledge of the compromise or having put her thumb-impression upon ...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Nihal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All488
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for damages for Rs. 525. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for Rs. 349-11-6 on account of a period of five years. The defendants appealed to the Judge and their appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 482 of 1921. In this they claimed that the whole suit ought to have been dismissed. The plaintiffs also appealed and their appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 484 of 1921. In this they claimed damages for one year extra which had been disallowed by the Court of first instance. The learned Judge heard the two appeals together and disposed of them by practically one judgment. The result was that he held that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages for six years no part of which was barred by time, but he thought that the rate of damages allowed by the first Court was excessive. The net result of his finding was that the decree which had been passed by the first Court in favour of the plaintiffs was reduc...
Rafiq and ors. Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All718; 87Ind.Cas.749
Mukerji, J.1. The respondents brought the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, for recovery of the site of a house sold along with the building standing thereon by the appellant No. 4 in favour of the other appellants.2. It appears that the respondents were co-sharers in the village of Pandauli and on a partition, they obtained exclusive ownership over that portion of the Wage in which the house in suit was situated. The respondents were dissatisfied with the sale and contended that the site was their property and could not be disposed of by the appellant No. 4 who, they said, was a mere tenant. They asked for recovery of possession and alleged that they had no objection to the purchasers removing the materials of the house.3. The vendor did not enter appearance. The vendees, however, contested the suit on the ground that there was a custom in the village by which the residents were entitled to sell their houses along with the sites.4. The Court of first instance came to t...
Ganga Vs. Mahmud-un-nissa Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All761; 87Ind.Cas.789
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. Previous to this litigation in 1910 a suit for ejectment in respect of this very plot was fought out between the parties. It was dismissed on the ground that such a suit was not maintainable in a revenue Court. That decision was based on certain rulings of the Board of Revenue which were than in force. Subsequent to this it appears that the Allahabad High Court in the ease of Param Hansman, Tewari v. Darsrathman Tewari A.I.R. 1921 All. 128, has taken a view that a suit under Section 58 would be maintainable in a revenue Court. This ruling has since been followed by the Board of Revenue. The result is that under the rulings which are now in force the suit is maintainable. The learned advocate for the appellant concedes this.2. The Court of first instance, however, dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by the principle of resjudicata. It remarked that although the present conception of the law may be...
Dungar Vs. Jahangir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All775
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The Courts below have decreed the claim.2. The lower appellate Court has found that the plots in suit wore sir and khudkhast of more than 12 years standing belonging to Man Singh exclusively, and that the defendant who is a daughter's son of Man Singh was recorded in the papers as a sub-tenant and has actually been paying rent as such to Man Singh, Man Singh gifted these plots to the plaintiffs-respondents who according to the Judge obtained mutation of names in their favour on the 3rd of August 1921.2. The first point raised is that after the transfer in 1921 Man Singh became ex-proprietary tenant and that, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to eject the defendant, a sub-tenant, but that the only person who can eject would be the ex-proprietary tenant. This point was never raised in either of the Courts below at all. The reason' obviously is that the point is altogether futile. The transfer in questi...
Ram NaraIn and ors. Vs. Nihal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.804a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for damages for Rs. 525. The Court of first instance' decreed the claim for Rs. 349-11-6 on account of a period of five years. The defendants appealed to the Judge and their appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 482 of 192l. In this they claimed that the whole suit ought to have been dismissed. The plaintiffs also appealed and their appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 484 of 1921. In this they claimed damages for one year extra which had been disallowed by the Court of first instance. The learned Judge heard the two appeals together and disposed of them by practically one judgment. The result was that he held that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages for six years no part of which was barred by time, but he thought that the rate of damages allowed by the First Court was excessive. The net result of his finding was that the decree which had been passed by the First Court in favour of the plaintiffs was reduc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »